PlayStation’s 5 Antitrust Lawsuits Explained

Sony Interactive Entertainment’s April 2019 decision to pull digital download codes from retail shelves was the opening salvo in a battle that has since exploded into a global legal offensive. That move, followed by the recent announcement that the company is moving toward a disc-less future, has infuriated players and sparked a wave of antitrust lawsuits. The core allegation across these cases is straightforward: PlayStation is forcing its user base to buy games exclusively through the PlayStation Store, a marketplace where Sony takes a 30-percent cut from every transaction, with no real competition to undercut its pricing.

The legal challenges have been building for years, with some cases now in advanced stages and others filed in direct response to the disc phase-out announcement. Players and consumer groups argue that eliminating physical media is yet another step in Sony’s campaign to eliminate purchasing choice. The suits span multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Portugal, the Netherlands, Mexico, and the United States.

“Physical games historically acted as an indirect competitive constraint for consumers with a PlayStation,” René Otto, founder of Deviant Legal, told Kotaku in an email. “Consumers could buy a boxed copy from Amazon, Walmart or a local retailer, wait for retailers to discount inventory, purchase a used copy, borrow a game from a friend or resell it afterwards. Even though Sony still controlled the platform, those alternatives limited the extent to which consumers depended on the PlayStation Store.”

Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Entertainment

The first major U. S. case, Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, was filed on May 5, 2021, in the Northern District of California by PlayStation user Agustin Caccuri. The complaint zeroed in on the elimination of download codes at retail, arguing that this made the PlayStation Store the only venue for both publishers to sell and gamers to buy digital PlayStation titles. The lawyers described this as a monopoly with immediate pricing consequences.

Data presented in the complaint showed that the average price of a digital game code on the PlayStation Store was 74 percent higher than its physical disc counterpart at retail outlets. “Sony made approximately $17 billion in revenue from the sale of digital PlayStation games in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021,” the complaint stated. “If the average price difference of +74% indicated by the above data is representative of the broader market, then overcharges resulting from Sony’s monopoly could be in the range of $7 billion per year as long as Sony’s monopoly continues.”

Sony moved to dismiss the case on Feb. 22, 2022, arguing that its practices were simply standard business conduct. The litigation dragged on, with several similar suits consolidated under this one in October 2023. In April, Sony agreed to a settlement of $7,850,000, covering anyone who purchased digital games through the PlayStation Store between April 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2023.

PlayStation You Owe Us

Across the Atlantic, U. K. law firm Milberg London and consumer rights advocate Alex Neill filed a staggering $7.9 billion lawsuit with the Competition Appeal Tribunal on Aug. 19. The firm’s argument is that Sony is “ripping people off” with its 30-percent commission on all PlayStation Store sales. The group’s website describes Sony as holding a “near monopoly on the sale of digital games and add-on content through its control of the PlayStation Store.” Milberg is also pursuing a similar case against Valve over Steam, which remains ongoing.

The key distinction between this case and the U. S. one is scope. Caccuri focuses narrowly on the removal of retail download codes. PlayStation You Owe Us, however, mirrors the logic of Epic Games’ battles against Apple and Google, arguing that Sony has constructed a closed ecosystem that allows it to levy unchecked fees on every sale, fees that cannot be avoided by purchasing anywhere else.

Otto cautions that success in such cases is not guaranteed. “Competition law doesn’t prohibit companies from being successful or even dominant,” he said. “The legal question is whether Sony is abusing a dominant market position.” The crux of the matter is defining the market itself. Sony will likely argue that the “relevant market” is the entire video game industry, where it competes with Xbox, Nintendo, and Valve. The plaintiffs, by contrast, contend that the relevant market is within Sony’s own ecosystem, where competition is nonexistent.

Sony has again defended its right to control how its games are sold, denying monopoly status. The trial concluded in May, and the Competition Appeal Tribunal is now deliberating. A ruling is expected within the year. Kotaku has reached out to Milberg for comment.

Fair PlayStation

Milberg’s Dutch arm, Milberg Amsterdam, entered the fray in February 2025, filing a complaint on behalf of Dutch consumer group Stichting Massaschade & Consument. This case is essentially the U. K. action, but tried under Dutch law. It remains in its early stages and could take years to resolve.

The announcement that Sony would stop producing physical discs has sharpened the group’s rhetoric. Lucia Melcherts of the consumer advocacy group told WCF Tech that “the end of physical discs removes the last place where a PlayStation game could still be bought and sold at a competitive price.” She added: “No discs means no second-hand market and no alternative to the PlayStation Store, so from 2028, Sony alone decides what a game costs and even how long you are allowed to use it. That is exactly the harm our Fair PlayStation claim is about: a price can never be fair when the buyer is left with no ownership and no alternative.”

The claim seeks approximately $500 million for consumers. While the disc phase-out has not yet been formally added to the case, the group is clearly gearing up to make it a central issue.

Update 8/6/2026, 1:44 p.m. ET: A Milberg representative provided additional context after publication. The Dutch collective action (WAMCA) proceeds in stages, and the court is currently ruling on preliminary questions such as jurisdiction, admissibility of the foundation, and class representativeness. A short exchange of submissions is scheduled for October, after which a ruling is expected. The foundation is expected to be declared admissible, moving the case to the merits phase in 2027. At its core, the case concerns Sony’s abuse of its dominant position, which translates into an unreasonably high “Sony Tax” of 30% on PlayStation Store transactions.

The representative also highlighted data points on the disc phase-out: the secondhand game market is estimated at $7.2 billion globally and could shrink or vanish once Sony stops producing discs. Physical media remains resilient, with an estimated 70 million discs sold in 2025. Major titles like Ghost of Yotei and Resident Evil Requiem sold well above the platform average in physical form, indicating sustained demand for ownership. The representative also noted a discrepancy between Sony’s reported digital sales percentages and independent analyst estimates, a gap they believe warrants scrutiny.

Ius Omnibus v. Sony Interactive Entertainment

In Portugal, law firms Sousa Ferro & Associados and Ferreira Pinto Cardigos Advogados filed a similar action on Aug. 3, 2023, on behalf of consumer protection group Ius Omnibus. The case was lodged with the Portuguese Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court and remains ongoing. Michael Sousa Ferro has previously collaborated with Milberg. Kotaku has reached out to Ius Omnibus for comment.

Mexico Antitrust Commission

The most recent development came shortly after Sony’s disc-less announcement, when Mexican Federal Representative Iraís Reyes and Senator Luis Donaldo Colosio filed a complaint with Mexico’s National Antitrust Commission. Reyes confirmed the lawsuit via Instagram, and the pair held a press conference to elaborate on their concerns.

This case builds on the antitrust accusations of the other suits but adds a critical new dimension: the complete erasure of the secondhand market once discs disappear. The plaintiffs argue that Sony is worsening the problem of the PlayStation Store being the only viable purchasing option.

“If discs disappear, anyone who owns a PlayStation will no longer be able to choose where to buy their games and will be forced to purchase them exclusively through Sony’s store,” Reyes said, as reported by LevelUp. “Sony would become both the referee and the player within its own ecosystem, and we know what can happen when a single company controls every part of the market.” Colosio added that secondhand retailers would also suffer significant harm.

Otto notes that the disc phase-out “doesn’t automatically make its conduct anti-competitive,” but the market definition question again takes center stage. “If Sony has a dominant position in that market and abuses it, then the conduct is anti-competitive,” he said. “However, phasing out physical games removes one of the last remaining competitive constraints within the PlayStation ecosystem. That makes the plaintiffs’ narrative, that PlayStation users have no meaningful alternative to Sony’s own storefront, considerably more persuasive than before.”

So far, the Mexican case is the only one that has used the disc phase-out as its primary anti-competitive argument. But it is a line of reasoning that the other active cases will inevitably adopt, and one that Sony will have to confront across multiple legal fronts. Kotaku has reached out to Sony for comment on how it plans to respond to these lawsuits, as well as to Reyes and Colosio.